In modern history, the topic of whistleblowers is something that has captured the public’s attention and imagination. A whistleblower is someone who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. Notable whistleblowers include Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange, and Aaron Swartz. There is much debate surrounding whistleblowers that are often viewed by the public as heroes, while simultaneously being persecuted—not to mention prosecuted—by the government or organizations that they have spoken out against. At times, these organizations have taken legal and other actions that have driven whistleblowers to feel the country and seek asylum, or even take their own lives. Therefore, the topic of whistleblowers and the details of how to handle such delicate situations is something that needs to be taken seriously by the public, government, and court system.
In a recent article by attorney Galit Kierkut, “Whistleblowing, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (SOX), she explains how whistleblowers are afforded protection by the law, but the general topic is still convoluted, even to attorneys. As she writes, “although welcome, the impact of the decision on SOX whistleblower legislation still remains unclear given the lack of clarity on what types of companies will qualify as 'contractors.' Furthermore, given the split decision of the Supreme Court (6-3), the dissenting justices warned that the majority's decision, “threatens to subject private companies to a costly new front of employment legislation.” This was contradicted by the majority, who maintained that there was “scant evidence” that the decision would result in the opening of any floodgates for whistleblower suits outside of the purpose of Section 1514A.
Enacted in 2002 against in the aftermath of corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act contributes to the mystique surrounding whistleblowers. Are they heroes and champions of the public or are they traitors to their country or organization? In one noted case from the early 2000s, an employee at a large Silicon Valley tech firm came forward with evidence of ongoing fraudulent activity being conducted by the company against the United States government. In this instance, the government itself was up against a corporation, and after more than five years, they eventually reached a settlement of $75.5 million, one of the largest in the history of the False Claims Act.
For more information, look for other articles by Galit Kierkut: “Supporting Working Women”, “Why Whistle-blowing Laws Are so Significant to Health Care Entities: A Case Study from New Jersey”.
In a recent article by attorney Galit Kierkut, “Whistleblowing, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (SOX), she explains how whistleblowers are afforded protection by the law, but the general topic is still convoluted, even to attorneys. As she writes, “although welcome, the impact of the decision on SOX whistleblower legislation still remains unclear given the lack of clarity on what types of companies will qualify as 'contractors.' Furthermore, given the split decision of the Supreme Court (6-3), the dissenting justices warned that the majority's decision, “threatens to subject private companies to a costly new front of employment legislation.” This was contradicted by the majority, who maintained that there was “scant evidence” that the decision would result in the opening of any floodgates for whistleblower suits outside of the purpose of Section 1514A.
Enacted in 2002 against in the aftermath of corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act contributes to the mystique surrounding whistleblowers. Are they heroes and champions of the public or are they traitors to their country or organization? In one noted case from the early 2000s, an employee at a large Silicon Valley tech firm came forward with evidence of ongoing fraudulent activity being conducted by the company against the United States government. In this instance, the government itself was up against a corporation, and after more than five years, they eventually reached a settlement of $75.5 million, one of the largest in the history of the False Claims Act.
For more information, look for other articles by Galit Kierkut: “Supporting Working Women”, “Why Whistle-blowing Laws Are so Significant to Health Care Entities: A Case Study from New Jersey”.
No comments:
Post a Comment